Michael Silver -- I just don't get it...

[21]

I blame television. And Bill Zehme. And our culture of celebrity. And our schools. But mostly Zehme.

Zehme puts lime juice in the good tequila?

 

[jgmacg]

Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Zehme is a fine writer. But he certainly helped capitalize the "I" in "profile."

 

[Double Down]

I always thought Mr. Zehme did do a nice job mocking the practice of celebrity profiles, including his own obviously, with this Heather Graham feature in Esquire a few years ago.

http://www.esquire.com/women/ESQ0400-APR_HEATHER

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Zehme is a fine writer. But he certainly helped capitalize the "I" in "profile."

Not while Kevin Sessums lives!

 

[jgmacg]

Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Zehme is a fine writer. But he certainly helped capitalize the "I" in "profile."

Not while Kevin Sessums lives!

True indeed! You can't spell "touche" without "ouch!"

 

[Joe Williams]

It's TV too, though. In the correspondents' little stand-ups after a report, or the gasbag analysts' studio or booth work, they started peppering their comments with "I asked--'' and "--told me" to justify their existences and prove to the boss or the audience that they did their own homework or had special access. Then print guys, seeing the path to stardom or just aping it mindlessly, started doing it too, even when it was implicit in their work.

Get the hell out of the way and tell the story, in best way possible.

 

[SF_Express]

First of all, unless another company snuck up on me in the past couple of years, it's:

Rose's Lime Juice. Not Rosie's.

Second, I have no problem with any of this.

First-person is bad when it's jarring or poorly done. These little references don't hit me that way, but I guess it's a personal preference. As a person who knows his way around a bar, I actually find it interesting he was drinking Patron and Rose's.

And then I ask: What exactly is the harm of this little detail?

I've become kind of anti-curmudgeonly on this kind of thing as I passed 50. I think we worry way too much about this stuff, much more than readers do. If it reads OK, it's OK. Pretty basic to me these days.

 

[Joe Williams]

I said way back at the start of this thread that I have no problem with the drink details. Doesn't promise too much, doesn't make any big statement, tells me a little about James.

The "I" and "me" stuff does get in the way for me. I want a writer to take me to the scene, bring me along. Not make me stand five feet away, watching, while he rubs up against the guy or mugs in the snapshot he's supposedly providing.

None of us could write without our egos. But once you start leading with that ego, you're toast as a journalist. Just my view.

 

[SF_Express]

None of us could write without our egos. But once you start leading with that ego, you're toast as a journalist. Just my view.

Fair enough. From my standpoint, it simply doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

If the writer is part of the scene, he's part of the sign. The words "I" and "me" don't jar me anymore, if done well.

That, of course, brings us back to the original point. What constitutes "well."

Superfly seems bothered by it as a matter of general, all-encompassing principle, and I'm not of that school of thought anymore.

 

[SuperflySnuka]

First of all, unless another company snuck up on me in the past couple of years, it's:

Rose's Lime Juice. Not Rosie's.

Second, I have no problem with any of this.

First-person is bad when it's jarring or poorly done. These little references don't hit me that way, but I guess it's a personal preference. As a person who knows his way around a bar, I actually find it interesting he was drinking Patron and Rose's.

And then I ask: What exactly is the harm of this little detail?

I've become kind of anti-curmudgeonly on this kind of thing as I passed 50. I think we worry way too much about this stuff, much more than readers do. If it reads OK, it's OK. Pretty basic to me these days.

Here's why, SF...

It leaves me with an empty feeling, just wanting to know so much more about the scene. When I read it, only three things came into my mind.

1) "Hmm, interesting drink. What a tool."

2) Was the bar dark or was it light? Was it crowded or empty? Was he surrounded by a bunch of 'lovely ladies' -- and man do i hate that line -- or was his entire entourage? Were there any more teammates there? (Further explanation-- earlier in the story, there was a line about how Edge went to Miami to celebrate the SB with former Colts teammates. Well, now is he that friendly with the Cards?)

3) It screamed -- LOOK AT ME. I'M THEEEE MICHAEL SILVER.

It's one thing to have access and to you use it well...****, imagine being Talese and hanging out for weeks with Sinatra. THAT's access. And it's another thing to be standing at a bar with a guy and suckling at the teet of his fame.

It reminds me a lot of Arash Markazi, except that Markazi is a scene columnist, not a features writer.

 

[Joe Williams]

Hey, SF_Express, please don't tell me you've been worn down to the point of accepting "Talk about the..." as a legitimate form of a question! :D

 

[21]

I think we can agree there's an art to being in the story without being the story ie, the collected SJ works on Peter King.

Would be interesting to post examples--not right now, just along the way--of pieces that pull it off.

 

[SuperflySnuka]

None of us could write without our egos. But once you start leading with that ego, you're toast as a journalist. Just my view.

Fair enough. From my standpoint, it simply doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

If the writer is part of the scene, he's part of the sign. The words "I" and "me" don't jar me anymore, if done well.

That, of course, brings us back to the original point. What constitutes "well."

Superfly seems bothered by it as a matter of general, all-encompassing principle, and I'm not of that school of thought anymore.

SF, I'm not against I/Me, when used correctly. If it's a column, ****, do what you want. But in a feature story where absolutely nothing pertained to Silver whatsoever, it was like he just injected himself into the story.

One of my favorite columns I ever wrote was about how I thought the college bball team I covered would react after a tough NCAA Tourney loss. I wrote it I/me because I'd been covering the team for four years, and I knew the players each personally. As writers, sometimes we can't convey how a person acts under duress, or how he handles a loss. Sometimes, a gamer doesn't allow for that. But in this instance, having known the players so well, yes, I injected myself into the column. Given a second chance, maybe I wouldn't have.

But for me, the overriding theme here is: When is it necessary and when is it not? If it leaves more questions than answers, it's not. If it feels like a "look-at-me" ploy, it's not...

 

[broadway joe]

And then I ask: What exactly is the harm of this little detail?

I've become kind of anti-curmudgeonly on this kind of thing as I passed 50. I think we worry way too much about this stuff, much more than readers do. If it reads OK, it's OK. Pretty basic to me these days.

Here's why, SF...

It leaves me with an empty feeling, just wanting to know so much more about the scene. When I read it, only three things came into my mind.

1) "Hmm, interesting drink. What a tool."

2) Was the bar dark or was it light? Was it crowded or empty? Was he surrounded by a bunch of 'lovely ladies' -- and man do i hate that line -- or was his entire entourage? Were there any more teammates there? (Further explanation-- earlier in the story, there was a line about how Edge went to Miami to celebrate the SB with former Colts teammates. Well, now is he that friendly with the Cards?)

3) It screamed -- LOOK AT ME. I'M THEEEE MICHAEL SILVER.

It's one thing to have access and to you use it well...****, imagine being Talese and hanging out for weeks with Sinatra. THAT's access. And it's another thing to be standing at a bar with a guy and suckling at the teet of his fame.

It reminds me a lot of Arash Markazi, except that Markazi is a scene columnist, not a features writer.
[/quote]

Snuka, at first you thought the description of the drink was completely unnecessary, and now you wish Silver had gone 12 layers deeper into detail? Make up your mind. Your real problem is with Silver's look-at-me writing style, which is understandable. You're on solid ground there. But do yourself a favor and drop the stuff about the drink detail, because you're really not making any sense.

 

[forever_town]

I think what Fly's getting at is that the drink added very little, if anything to the scene. The drink doesn't tell us a whole lot about Edge that we don't already know. Delving further into the rest of the scene at the bar could have spoken volumes about him as a person or him as a football player.

I tend not to be very good at describing exactly what the physical scene looks like, though I'll sometimes add a visual if it's directly germane to a story. I didn't think the postgame outfit a Maryland lacrosse player had on was significant, but the fact he was looking down with a somber expression on his face despite scoring a hat trick in the team's loss to John's Hopkins spoke volumes.

And, also for the record, I hate "lovely ladies." Sounds like editorializing. The only good thing I'll say about it is that he didn't become the print version of Don Imus by describing them in a less complimentary fashion.

 

[broadway joe]

I think what Fly's getting at is that the drink added very little, if anything to the scene. The drink doesn't tell us a whole lot about Edge that we don't already know. Delving further into the rest of the scene at the bar could have spoken volumes about him as a person or him as a football player.

...or not. At some point you have to assume that if more description was necessary or germane, the writer would have given it to us, especially if he's attentive enough to detail to describe exactly what Edge was drinking. You don't have to paint every picture with a million brush strokes.

Edge. Phoenix nightclub. Wee hours. Lots of hotties. Tequila and lime. I pretty much got the picture, don't you?

And keep in mind perhaps the most important point -- this was not supposed to be a profile of Edgerrin James., it was a web column. If Silver had gone on and on about the scene in the bar, I'm sure he would have been accused of over-writing. Bottom line is I think the well-placed distaste for Silver's style sometimes leads people to find problems with his writing that aren't there.

 

[Monroe Stahr]

Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Zehme is a fine writer. But he certainly helped capitalize the "I" in "profile."

I'd like to poke his "I" out.

 

[jgmacg]

If thine "I" offend thee, pluck it out.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Obviously a subjective discussion ... but I'd be curious to hear the names of three NFL writers at national outlets (sportsline/fox/espn/yahoo) who you think are better reads than Silver. Obviously it's personal preference ... but still curious.

I prefer it when writers to hang out with athletes away from the locker room/field, but that's just me.

Dr. Z
Jason Cole
Sam Farmer (LA Times)
Jeffri Chadiha
John Clayton
Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ, was at espn, lost his job as we all know)

I prefer Peter King over Silver; at least he writes about football.
Silver writes about how cool he is because he got to watch rich people hang out.

 

[Double Down]

The constant hummer the big lead wants to give Silver is embarrassing.

Tim Layden now writes plenty about the NFL. He's much better. Seth Wickersham? Better. Tim Keown? Better. Tom Friend? Better.